Guidelines for J. Cryptology Referees

  1. Give both high-level, general comments and low-level, specific comments about the positive and negative aspects of the submission. Comment in as much detail as necessary about the correctness, depth, originality, potential breadth of audience, scholarship, and exposition of the submission. In particular, give explicit, constructive criticism if you think you have found a technical flaw, a "gap" in an argument, inconsistent or nonstandard terminology or notation, or missing references. Comment, if necessary, on discussion of related and previous work, particularly if you think the discussion is weak and that this weakness makes the set of potential readers noticeably smaller than it could be.

  2. If the submission starts with a brief, well written abstract (as all submissions should!), then you need not summarize the submission's contents in your report. If the abstract is missing or inadequate, then point this out and, if possible, provide an appropriate 1- to 2-paragraph abstract.

  3. Avoid ad-hominem remarks, sarcasm, outrage, and all emotional flourishes. They are unnecessary, no matter what your wishes for the disposition of the manuscript, and can be counterproductive. If you want the submission to be rejected, a clearly stated, objective explanation of its inadequacy is most likely to produce the outcome you want. If you think that the basic idea of the submission is sound but that substantial revision is needed, you should make constructive suggestions. Ad-hominem remarks are more likely to drive authors away to another journal than to produce a revision that you will be satisfied with.